Egalitarians for real equality.: tappedout: Egalitarians for real equality.: patriarchy do-it-to-julia:...
Egalitarians for real equality.: patriarchy
Just an article I wrote for the school paper about the concept of patriarchy. This issue is our gender-themed issue so I got kind of excited.
—-
My sociology textbook defines patriarchy as “a place…
In response, I’d like to retroactively add a caveat to my previous writing. And that is that i barely and rarely consider myself a feminist, and when I feel the most like I am it is as a result of there being no better choice in terms of fighting for equality. Now, I’ve seen, and I’ve heard, and I’ve been on your side before, so don’t try and tell me to “get off [my] high horse,” or that “[my] labels are fucking stupid,” because they aren’t mine, I didn’t come up with them, I just use them because that’s all we have. I’m not one to come up with new, convoluted ways to refer to something that already has a name. Once again, i think that’s just another ridiculous reason to disregard a perfectly valid political movement.
First off, your first point fails to derail mine, and this is how: as I said before; it necessarily follows that a culture that supports certain human characteristics and then attributes those characteristics to a single gender, class, or race IS catering to that gender, class or race. There is no question about it. Now, the debate comes in deciding whether this culture is an example of that phenomenon. You can argue all you want about whether or not men constitute that gender or not. Personally, I believe “patriarchal” values do indeed offer quite a few positive stereotypes about women, but not, i believe, ones that will allow women to do the most good in the world. Even the interpretation of a feminist woman from that viewpoint is not a positive one.
Another misconception that you seem to hold is that feminists are exclusively feminist. That, I’m afraid, is not overwhelmingly true. I’m sure that the powerful feminists, the ones that form lobbies, hold rallies, or gain money through this political movement, much like all individuals that gain money and power through a political movement, are the most extreme and purist of us all. As far as actual feminists that I’ve met personally, though, the calloused man-hating persona is not at all present. Rather, an honest character with a sincere frustration for the exclusivity of masculinity shines through.
As for your point about evolution…you had none. You basically just repeated my point back at me in different words, besides that part at the end where you accused me of not acknowledging history as a historical fact ( a history, I will have you recall, that i throughly encapsulated, hence, acknowledging it) and wrote:
We’re recognizing that history is not an overall picture of oppressed women simply because of patriarchal gender roles, but rather a system of living that needed to be used in a less technologically advanced world.
Which, is a sentence that I can only assume would be simplified thusly:
History is not completely a picture of women oppressed exclusively as a result of “patriarchal gender roles”, but, instead, a needed social construct in a world lacking technology.
The only thing I can say to that is that history is neither a picture, nor a “system of living,” but a culmination of all past events. I can only assume that the personal belief you were attempting to convey went more like this:
Women weren’t always oppressed only as a direct result of the patriarchy, they were also oppressed because they needed to be “back then.”
And I’m afraid I cannot fully understand or back up that point, as it is so clearly false, my mind simply rejects it.
Also: to clarify a most basic political tenant to you before we move on: you seem to be under the impression that feminists are not helping women because they are drawing attention to women’s “oppression,” and are therefore, and here’s where I lose you, creating oppressed women? You do remember what society we live in, right? You do realize that without first establishing the fact that women’s rights is still an issue, the basis of their argument, if you will, that people like you will fail to understand their claims? By drawing women’s attention to gender stereotypes and political hurdles, feminists are not creating oppressed women, they’re creating informed women. Women who will, hopefully, keep laws like Virginia’s forced ultrasound decision from spreading throughout the nation.
Since my last response was merely a rebuttal on the part of the feminist agenda in order to correct misconceptions, I’ll try to be clearer on my own point of view on the subject.
Personally, I feel as if the masculinity-worshiping affects all of us. Somewhere along back in time, some insecure men must have felt the need to inflict a view of masculinity on the entirety of the male population, and in so doing have inflicted it on all of us. I feel as if all submissive people are equally affected, no matter their gender, in regards to this. Our society is equally hateful towards submissive, non-stereotypical men, as it is towards women in general. The dr. pepper ad is a great, recent example of this. Clearly, if you are not a man (and in this society, despite lots of backlash, that means you must have a penis) then you’re out of the club, and you’re only a man if you also dress in camo, drive through the jungle in an off-road vehicle, and drink manly things (or at least, if you like watching movies about these sorts of things).
So yes, I see your point about submissive men, and I understand your consternation, but at the same time women count for 51% of the population, submissive men do not. There is reason to fight for women, just as there is reason to fight for men who dislike how the interplay between their personalities and their gender has affected their lives in the social realm. Feminism, as you can see, has gathered steam and power despite it’s unpopularity among a mostly conservative america, and men that feel that both viewpoints are lacking will form (and have formed) a new group to fight for them similarly.
And I know I won’t change your mind about feminism, because hell, you’ve already dedicated a blog to hating it bald-facedly, but my original intention was to express my frustration on the part of feminism at the seemingly unending stream of “logical” explanations as to why women’s rights aren’t an issue. How women’s objectification and characterization is simply a product of innate drives on the part of humans as a whole, when, as modern citizens of this globe, we know clearly that it is not.
And I will say that yes, I do believe that this society, “patriarchal” or not, does cater to men: heterosexual men. Otherwise you’d see just as many scantily clad men in movies as you see women, women in ads would cheat on and lie to their husbands just as often as men in ads do, hell, women would be the first chosen to speak in politics on the polemic of abortion legality in the united states, instead of their bigoted fathers, husbands and brothers. And on the other side, if this society did not cater so openly and completely to heterosexual men, and unequivocally mistrust, undermine, and even hate women and all that is considered feminine, it wouldn’t invoke mockery for a man to wear a skirt or a dress, to like to shop, to be submissive. But at the same time as I believe all that, and wish that somehow the human race could exist without creating some sort of social construct that puts one demographic ahead of another, my grasp of human history leaves me little doubt that we will all be sincerely underwhelmed. This is why I so emphatically insist on feminism’s being an experiment, on it’s importance as a political movement to teach and inform the human race of the nature of society, rather than to provide a complete and irreprochable projection of the ideal society.
Whatever labels people decide to use are their labels, and there are better labels other than that one. Feminism is not a valid political movement, and it never has been. Even if it has been a valid political movement, it sure as hell isn’t one now. I told you to get off your high horse because you seem to think that the only ones privileged in society are men, and for this (invalid) reason, you think that the majority of them would want to keep it the way that it is, when in reality, feminists have done more to reinforce patriarchy than men have.
First off, your first point fails to derail mine, and this is how: as I said before; it necessarily follows that a culture that supports certain human characteristics and then attributes those characteristics to a single gender, class, or race IS catering to that gender, class or race. There is no question about it. Now, the debate comes in deciding whether this culture is an example of that phenomenon. You can argue all you want about whether or not men constitute that gender or not. Personally, I believe “patriarchal” values do indeed offer quite a few positive stereotypes about women, but not, i believe, ones that will allow women to do the most good in the world. Even the interpretation of a feminist woman from that viewpoint is not a positive one.
I don’t see how this changes anything I’ve said. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you or you’re misunderstanding me, but my point is that patriarchy benefits both genders and it disadvantages both genders, and that it therefore caters to both, not just to men.
Another misconception that you seem to hold is that feminists are exclusively feminist. That, I’m afraid, is not overwhelmingly true. I’m sure that the powerful feminists, the ones that form lobbies, hold rallies, or gain money through this political movement, much like all individuals that gain money and power through a political movement, are the most extreme and purist of us all. As far as actual feminists that I’ve met personally, though, the calloused man-hating persona is not at all present. Rather, an honest character with a sincere frustration for the exclusivity of masculinity shines through.
Nearly every single feminist I’ve ever met has held sexist or wrong views of patriarchy, rape, domestic violence, the wage gap, misandry, etc, and I say the same of any feminist writing I’ve ever read. I don’t care about attitudes or if they think they don’t hate or harm men, they do. So yes, it is overwhelmingly true.
Your drawing of my conclusion on historical examples of patriarchy is completely wrong, but I suppose you used it to make your argument look better and to somehow make me come across as sexist. You said his example was exaggerated, and it was not. Men are generally more dominant and don’t give birth, which is why men hunted/gathered/ruled, and why women were in charge of children and the home. I do think that the concept of women not being allowed to rule is sexist (though I don’t think anyone should be allowed to rule), but basic patriarchy is not and was hardly enforced, it’s just how things were (not that that makes it acceptable today). That is still present in today’s society because we’re still naturally inclined to act that way, even if it’s not to the same extent that it was. I don’t know if one of us is misunderstanding the other or if you or I missed something in the original post.
My point is not that feminists create women’s oppression by drawing attention to actual instances of women’s oppression. My point is that feminists create more oppression for women by bringing up false examples of sexism (things like the wage gap and less women in male dominated fields, which are due to difference in choice), and giving false statistics for women’s problems while purposely hiding men’s issues or being completely ignorant of them (things like domestic violence and sexual assault/rape). Bringing up reproductive rights doesn’t reinforce women’s weakness. Acting as if women are the only victims of instances that affect both sexes equally makes them look especially weaker than they are. Again it seems like you’re purposely misunderstanding me for the sake of your own argument.
Personally, I feel as if the masculinity-worshiping affects all of us. Somewhere along back in time, some insecure men must have felt the need to inflict a view of masculinity on the entirety of the male population, and in so doing have inflicted it on all of us. I feel as if all submissive people are equally affected, no matter their gender, in regards to this. Our society is equally hateful towards submissive, non-stereotypical men, as it is towards women in general. The dr. pepper ad is a great, recent example of this. Clearly, if you are not a man (and in this society, despite lots of backlash, that means you must have a penis) then you’re out of the club, and you’re only a man if you also dress in camo, drive through the jungle in an off-road vehicle, and drink manly things (or at least, if you like watching movies about these sorts of things).
I really think you just don’t understand natural male instinct. I really think it’s funny that you imply that there was some kind of brainwashing conference that just told all men how they were supposed to be. I really can’t understand how you think that femininity isn’t likewise glorified in its beauty (while the male body is glorified lesser in modern society) and glorified in all of its “innocence, purity, and goodness” and how this lends legitimacy to their accusations of violence (sexual or domestic) committed against them, whether it’s true or backed up with evidence or not. I also think you miss that there are different types of “acceptable” masculinity, just like there are different types of “acceptable” femininity. There are guys that ride through the jungle in camo and then there’s guys that ride bikes, there’s guys that ride motorcycles, there’s guys that shoot pool, there’s guys that gamble. For the most part it’s not that difficult to be masculine or to fit in with different types of men, depending on interest, and to not be questioned on their masculinity, unless someone fears they have feminine mannerisms or homosexual preferences. Some guys get off on their strength and their ability to “kick anyone’s ass” but for the most part, I think most guys know that there’s always going to be someone bigger than them, so it’s kind of pointless and dangerous to have a pissing contest over how violent you can get. The Dr. Pepper commercial was targeted to men because their client base is mostly women and they wanted more of a male client base to match that. Sure, it was a bit too obvious and offensive to some people what they were trying to do, but they weren’t trying to reinforce a specific standard onto men, they were trying to appeal to male interest, which is largely stupid action shit.
My point on submissive men was a point made within feminism, not with submissive men in society. My point was that men in the feminist movement have no voice, are told to shut up because they’re men and they’ve contributed to the way society is today simply because they were born into it, as if women can’t perpetuate patriarchy as well. My point had nothing to do with submissive men fitting into society.
I didn’t say there wasn’t reason to fight for women, I said feminism is a shitty way to do it. I said that men should be kept in mind and not blatantly ignored at the expense of women, and I’ve already linked you to evidence of that happening frequently within the feminist movement. Another thing you don’t seem to understand is that, with the exception of reproductive rights, men are more systematically oppressed than women, especially since reproductive rights haven’t been completely taken away from women for the past several decades. Just because men are in power, doesn’t mean they’re looking out for other men, they’re actually largely looking out for women first in all circumstances (ummm….VAWA? The definition of rape in some states and many countries catering to women?), other than abortion, as I’ve already mentioned. For this reason, having male oppression ignored by both genders, it’s debatable who has it worse. At least women have alibis (though I despise them and believe them to be illogical and wrong). Men don’t get the reassurance of a large and vocal movement fighting at their every turn, like feminists like to think the government does.
I always think it’s so cute that feminists have such an extreme “with or against us” mentality. Because that’s what egalitarianism means: fuck those womynz they ain’t oppressed! Only feminism can fight for women!
Oh wait, men are objectified too? But the womyn! Daniel Craig is so hot shirtless! Have you seen how ripped he is? Oh wait, you said that menz and womynz have different characteristics that affect their outlook and life choices and sex drives and preferences? Sexist!
I’ve already admitted, and I always have, that reproductive rights are an example of women’s oppression, I don’t know why you think this means I should join your bigoted, illogical, sexist movement. I’ve already explained here why male cross-dressing is not an evidence of misogyny, but of misandry. But clearly, examples of very straight, very sex driven, metrosexual men don’t ever exist and are never glorified *coughs-Ryan Gosling*
This is why I so emphatically insist on feminism’s being an experiment, on it’s importance as a political movement to teach and inform the human race of the nature of society, rather than to provide a complete and irreprochable projection of the ideal society.
You’re doing it wrong.
Evidently, I need to be even clearer than before: my views are not big-movement feminist, so of course I’m “doing it wrong,” but I think you’re failing to see the incredible help feminism is doing for women. Yes, I know, it’s not a movement targeted towards support of men, I’ve admitted that several times, but that does not invalidate it as a movement in support of women.
Three things:
Feminism is not a valid political movement, and it never has been. Even if it has been a valid political movement, it sure as hell isn’t one now.
…
Men don’t get the reassurance of a large and vocal movement fighting at their every turn
…
Actually, there’s just so much fodder for debate in this that I’ll answer it later, I don’t really have the time right now.
